Hedge Funds, Criminally arranged unethical Medical Experiments, information secretly funneled to Elite Wall Street Investors, helping them "game" the system.
I was going to reserve this page to make another point, which I think is now unnecessary to belabor. Instead, I am going to discuss how many times my mother would tell me growing up that my twin brother and I were, at birth, "enrolled" in experiments, slated to be used as guinea pigs in medical experiments, and they liked using us that way because we were twins.
It appears, now, that these experiments were intended to be covered up in complicated and criminal ways -- one motive being so that Wall Street Criminals could profit from having the results of such experiments covered up and illicitly communicating them, and there would be no proof of any research done, thus no proof of insider trading on illicitly gained knowledge. But they could speculate off the knowledge, learn ahead of time information about products that would eventually affect the market after official studies to be later done came out.
Indeed, in her following article on healthcare corruption, Marcia Angell mentions how crucially important it is to healthcare companies to cover up negative results.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/
A few decades ago, medical schools did not have extensive financial dealings with industry, and faculty investigators who carried out industry-sponsored research generally did not have other ties to their sponsors. But schools now have their own manifold deals with industry and are hardly in a moral position to object to their faculty behaving in the same way. A recent survey found that about two thirds of academic medical centers hold equity interest in companies that sponsor research within the same institution.6 A study of medical school department chairs found that two thirds received departmental income from drug companies and three fifths received personal income.7In the 1980s medical schools began to issue guidelines governing faculty conflicts of interest but they are highly variable, generally quite permissive, and loosely enforced.
Because drug companies insist as a condition of providing funding that they be intimately involved in all aspects of the research they sponsor, they can easily introduce bias in order to make their drugs look better and safer than they are. Before the 1980s, they generally gave faculty investigators total responsibility for the conduct of the work, but now company employees or their agents often design the studies, perform the analysis, write the papers, and decide whether and in what form to publish the results. Sometimes the medical faculty who serve as investigators are little more than hired hands, supplying patients and collecting data according to instructions from the company.
In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published.8 But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome. It is not unusual for a published paper to shift the focus from the drug’s intended effect to a secondary effect that seems more favorable.
The suppression of unfavorable research is the subject of Alison Bass’s engrossing book, Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial. This is the story of how the British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline buried evidence that its top-selling antidepressant, Paxil, was ineffective and possibly harmful to children and adolescents. Bass, formerly a reporter for the Boston Globe, describes the involvement of three people—a skeptical academic psychiatrist, a morally outraged assistant administrator in Brown University’s department of psychiatry (whose chairman received in 1998 over $500,000 in consulting fees from drug companies, including GlaxoSmithKline), and an indefatigable New York assistant attorney general. They took on GlaxoSmithKline and part of the psychiatry establishment and eventually prevailed against the odds.
Except, I am going to add a whole other slant to this: these same academic institutions also have manifold and complicated deals with elite Wall Street investors and Hedge Funds, and have much of their endowments invested in such speculative outfits. All of which gives them motive not only to cover up negative information but to participate in schemes that result in certain elite "favored" Wall Street investors to systematically get certain inside information "ahead of time" so they can make a huge amount of money speculating and skimming off the top.
All of this would work the best if certain companies willfully engaged in regularly scheduled patterns of criminal behavior detrimental to consumers (e.g., willful withholding of negative information on bad side effects of products) which is then uncovered, tons of consumers have been hurt, plaintiff's lawyers are waiting in the wings, they get sued, they get into trouble, their stocks plummet and other stocks go up. All because such systematic instability raises the profits to be made off speculation by Wall Street Hedge Funds who know in advance what is going to happen and when.
And how do we not know some Hedge Fund managers might not also be secretly "arranging" for such criminal behavior and troubles which they can so enormously profit off of to happen in the first place? Rules of corporate governance have created a situation where CEO's are careerists who do not care about the long term interests of their own companies, but instead could easily collude in anti-competitive ways. A CEO who sponsors criminal behavior in his own company which might work to the benefit of a competitor will only be punished, by his own shareholders, with a huge "golden parachute" severance pay and possible reward with a better job, care of Hedge Fund manager speculating off such criminality.
Here is where a motive can be seen for some corporations to sponsor "underground" studies in colleges where human subjects are involuntarily experimented on, and all kinds of elaborate ruses are put in place to cover up that this is a study they are involved in. Because information from the results of such experiments can be communicated as "inside information" to elite Hedge Fund managers allowing them to speculate off the controlled, rigged, and well timed "release" of negative information to the public. But, to avoid "insider trading" charge, we have to cover up that such a study was done, make it look like certain individuals had certain medical problems (or fake diagnoses) all on their own, [modified 5/24/2017] and here is where organized crime enters into the picture.
In any case, let's explore more specific examples of how, EVEN WHEN negative information about healthcare products is exposed rather than covered up, things can be criminally rigged so the exposure of such negative information about a healthcare product is designed to benefit Wall Street Investors, in such a way so the "good guys" work in cahoots with the "bad guys" and certain elite investors skim off the top.
Note the misfortune surrounding Johnson & Johnson, the company responsible for bribing a Harvard child psychiatrist into inventing "childhood bipolar disorder" -- a questionable diagnosis that's been used as an excuse to prescribe children anti-psychotics for bratty behavior. Note, however, how Johnson & Johnson received negative attention from a plaintiff's law firm all due to the fact that Risperdal caused Gynecomastia, and notice how the CEO managed to engage in unethical behavior (covering up of negative information) that played right into the hands of plaintiff's law firms later hoping to sue the company. I have a feeling he is doing perfectly well in his career now, anyway, despite all that. After all, such misfortune could only have worked to the benefit of competitor, Eli Lilly, which is allied with the powerful Bush Family. Why wouldn't he be doing well now?
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/
See, there is nothing about Risperdal that makes it unique, among anti-psychotics, for causing gynecomastia -- something that is a result of elevated female hormone (prolactin) levels. Other drugs, such as Eli Lilly blockbuster, Zyprexia, also cause elevated prolactin levels but, for some reason, did not get targetted in the same way. I'd have to research more, but I suspect there may have been no studies done on Eli Lilly's Zyprexa and Gynecomastia at the time. Note how Eli Lilly's alliance with the powerful Bush family might explain its better luck with regard to that matter.
Is it possible there is some kind of subtle and secret hierarchy in the corporate world, with healthcare companies all working somewhat in collusion with a banking sector that speculates off negative results and bad behavior? Which has encouraged systematic bad behavior among the healthcare sector so that they, in collusion with the Federal Government and class action plaintiff's law firms, can extract a pseudo "tax" from the healthcare sector? Simply because elite investors can rig things and profit to the detriment of lower down investors and shareholders AND such profiteering is dependent on coercing certain healthcare companies into systematically putting bad products on the market which systematically cause bad health outcomes for large numbers of people? And where universities are used as some kind of networking/information hub, with the instinct of universities to protect their reputations allowing for a kind of corruption to build even while universities can be guaranteed to pull all sorts of strings in ways that ensure increased corporate impunity?
Notice how powerful Hedge Funds are able to blur the lines between public and private in such a sense that they are, for all practical purposes, behaving exactly the same way as a socialist command and control government normally would -- as an entity that taxes, skims off the top and avoids liability.
You end up with criminal oligarchy run by Hedge Funds and other super powerful corporations, which allows them to rig things so as to almost create sort of like a "virtual company" that coordinates like an ordinary company does, yet includes bits and pieces of official companies that are technically separate, compartmentalized, and with compartmentalized liability, yet acts like one gigantic company above the law, exempt from criminal or civil liability, and held together by the invisible bonds of organized crime.
Officially, we do not see them as a controlling government that has instituted a "command and control" Soviet Style system because there is no piece of paper written out there that SAYS that is what they are, but to a large degree I really do believe that is what they have become -- unofficially. The truth obfuscated behind massive amounts of complicated regulations and red tape. And, of course, the USA has tons of propaganda that talks about "innovation" and "the magic of the free market." But Stalin could have kept his system exactly the same and changed his propaganda to resemble US propaganda, and would the whole entire media have done anything else but mindlessly fall for it?
I note, up until now, there has been nothing to stop individual CEO's from deliberately engaging in criminal behavior that hurts the shareholders from being rewarded with better jobs care of competitor corporate allies or Wall Street speculators who benefitted. And this is mainly because the Federal Government has not been prosecuting individual CEO's for their criminal acts, it has merely been making shareholders pay fines.
That, I suspect, might be about to change.
I'll note, for instance, a recent article in Bloomberg about the Justice Department's change in policy wherein they now plan to go after INDIVIDUAL corporate criminals.
Sally Quillian Yates, the department’s No. 2 official, ordered policy changes to push prosecutors to reinvigorate cases, according to a memo she issued Wednesday. Under the new approach, only companies that disclose information about individual wrongdoing may be eligible for lesser penalties for cooperating.
“Our mission here is not to recover the largest amount of money from the greatest number of corporations,” Yates plans to say Thursday at a speech at New York University School of Law, according to excerpts released by the Justice Department. “Our job is to seek accountability from those who break our laws and victimize our citizens. It’s the only way to truly deter corporate wrongdoing."
You can also learn a bit from this talk by Financial Industry prosecutor, Antonia Apps, particularly starting 18 minutes into this video, 20 mins 20 seconds into her video, where she talks about Hedge Funds gaining illicit knowledge "ahead of time" from "expert networking" firms, using Intel Chips as an example. She also discusses how, one thing that must start happening is for individuals WITHIN companies to start being prosecuted for the crimes they have committed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qxRonpQ7Hc
She does not discuss involuntary human experimentation in her talk, however I note that she mentions, sometimes these cases involve "nuance" and discusses an example of where, suppose you caught someone committing one "armed robbery" but you "feel" they have committed a few other "armed robberies" -- do you want to figure out a way to get them to "admit" to the other crimes they committed? I note, I think Federal Prosecutors usually do not think this way with regard to financial crime -- but they would think this way if a case were brought to their attention involving one anecdotal example of identical twins involved with the medical system where healthcare professionals were in close communication illicitly with elite investors. They'd feel a need to try to get the individuals involved to identify who all the other victims were -- even if, in most other instances, there was little to no objective "proof."
Meanwhile, I do remember my mother telling me around 2002 that "they like it that you are twins" and that there are elite Wall Street investors in close contact with doctors involved with my twin brother, who want to "learn information ahead of time" about various medical products, so they can outperform other investors.
That is not all. It looks like my parents (and grandparents, at earlier times) were subjected to both extortion, blackmail, and other types of threats in order to force their cooperation. I say that in part because they have, at different times and in very subtle ways, communicated as much. (Problem is, if you directly confront them on the issue, it is not necessarily predictable what they would say.) I'd say extortion at first, and then once they started cooperating with using their children/family members in criminal ways, you could say it all turned into blackmail. I could also do a longer presentation on that, but maybe elsewhere and at another time.
In any case, this page is a work in progress, and now I will simply try to make a list of all the things I know pertaining to that matter.
When I was growing up, my grandfather would often tell me that his father, Angelo Monello, was forced into having medical experiments done on him, and the reason why he died fairly young of bone cancer was because some of those experiments included high levels of radiation exposure.
You can read about him here:
http://www.theanarchistwine.com/epilogue/
He testified as an "alibi" or defense witness in the Sacco and Vanzetti case. It would appear he had a successful tile business AFTER such testimony, which is rather odd because the government usually does not reward defense witnesses with government contracts. The government DOES reward witnesses with various perks like that if they engaged in wrong doing and the witness agrees to cover it up, though.
I can't help but note, while the New York Times may have mentioned that Angello Monello was a witness in the Sacco and Vanzetti case, they reported nothing with regard to his problems with Mussolini and imprisonment in fascist Italy/Sicily, where my grandfather always told me he was imprisoned for political reasons. In any case, I always thought the medical experiments on Angelo were done in the United States, not Sicily, but I also never asked explicitly where they happened so I am not sure.
I will only note that, Harvard University was heavily involved in the Sacco and Vanzetti case, and oddly enough my grandfather's admission to Harvard was delayed until after they were executed. He was initially rejected from Harvard, reapplied, and was admitted days after those two were executed. I do not think he had a good experience there, but he did not tell me much other than that he'd often note how they are always raising money and sending him letters asking for money, and "to this day, I have not given them one single penny." However, I'll just speculate that, whatever secrets those two were carrying (eventually to the grave), Harvard wanted to be sure they were dead first before admitting my grandfather, so they didn't have second thoughts and blurt it out. Sounds like Harvard's involvement in the Sacco and Vanzetti case had nothing to do with wanting to learn about the truth, but had to do with how they could exploit whatever secret knowledge they had to their advantage.
Based on what Harvard professor, Richard Pipes, said in a lecture of a course I took at Harvard on the Russian Revolution, something about their ancestry might have made Angelo Monello especially vulnerable to potential charges of spying leading to execution, after having testified as an alibi for the defense in a case involving alleged anarchists who openly proclaimed that they were "hoping to overthrow" the federal government through violent revolution. What Pipes said was that there was a cousin of the Romanov family -- I think he may have even said the name "George" but I am not sure -- who was sent to America "where they did extremely cruel medical experiments on him, and then his son went to Harvard." If that is true, I suppose that would have been a good way to keep the whole family blackmailed and exploited like this, as well as "quiet" about a bunch of stuff, at least so long as the cold war was going on. However, I can't really say I know that for sure, because if it's true, neither my parents nor grandparents ever told me about it, so it isn't necessarily true from my point of view absent definitive proof.
[** Added August 29, 2016. Actually, no that isn't true that my parents and grandparents said nothing. Every now and then they made statements sort of consistent with that in a way. My father saying around ~2003 that "Schloming" used to be "Holstein" way back when, and I asked who were the Holstein's and he said "they were just an old European family. When I was a teenager my mother starts every now and then mentioning I have Norman blood in me, from my grandfather's side of the family, and they weren't originally from Sicily. I ask him and he instantly says "you were descended from a Hungarian King," and I didn't ask anything more. At Harvard, when I was at Memorial Church and had the key, I overheard a few organists along with I think Andrew Shenton in my presence talking about how some possibly Hungarian or European Royalty had the key and would sometimes practice the organ there, and I know this was someone I never bumped into. And Ideal Gambera visited Rockport once and brought a letter Angelo Monello wrote to his cousin who may have been named Michael, all in very flowery language that someone who was upper class would write, they read it out loud and then my mother said to me "He was illiterate." I was just too intimidated to repeat all this. As well as not really wanting to repeat something I feel is not fully credible without fully explaining that my whole childhood involved a VERY abnormal upbringing, abnormal enough so you could say it was criminal to bring someone up that way. You can speculate as to whether they might have been blackmailed to bring me up that way by others.
Indeed, I note, there have been prior Romanov "hoaxes" of women who were obviously NOT Romanovs, who became convinced they were and told of how different individuals told them little "hints" or "nuggets of information" at different times throughout their lives which they could not, at the time, see any real significance to, but then when they get old enough and put the pieces of the puzzle together, it's like they suddenly think everyone was hinting that they were members of the Romanov Family. In fact, I remember watching a youtube video of two women who thought they were members of the Romanov family, explaining that. And, DNA evidence shows it was all a hoax. Well, it is obvious, that is what happened to me. But, after years of being a victim of criminal racketeering perpetrated by Harvard and allied corporations, which my parents colluded in as well to manipulate me, I am going to have to speculate that this was probably a disinformation campaign designed in such a way so that, later on down the road, I could be “reminded” of all these “hints of royalty” people at Harvard dropped here and there in my presence, only to think out loud about it, and then if they deny having told any of that to me, and if DNA evidence shows I have zero relation to the Romanovs, then from the standpoint of a court of law, it is impossible to indict so many people based on my eyewitness testimony alone, which now is proven unreliable, in a manner suggesting I’m someone who makes things up. And here is where perhaps this strategy pursued by them at Harvard is responsible for so many of the perpetrators of organized crime against me being blackmailed and used as guinea pigs for medical experiments for companies wanting to secretly test out “in-the-works” advances medical engineering they are developing.
In my case, my parents, other relatives, Harvard employees and a few other individuals later on did to me exactly what was done to these two girls, e.g., the planting of information that could be seen as designed to lead me to believe I was a member of the Romanov Family, so long as individuals who came into my life around 2012 made certain suggestions to me.
Consider the fact that I was a victim of all kinds of unethical behavior and criminal acts including rape which same family members who made such statements and which same Harvard employees and other people outside the family also set the stage for or had a hand in it somehow, and what makes the most sense is: I am a victim of some kind of organized crime conspiracy which my parents were forced to participate in as perpetrators, and which was plotted very cleverly, in such a way so several different potential "escape routes" or "ways of covering things up" were planned out in advance by the perpetrators. Most of them revolving around manipulating a victim into discrediting themselves, even while crafting all sorts of ways to discredit the victim or render their credibility unreliable IN ANTICIPATION of future crimes to be committed. So, by the time my parents were saying such things to me, along with some people at Harvard, they and various Harvard affiliates were saying and doing a bunch of other things which would call their credibility and motives seriously into question.
[April 12, 2017. I wanted to note one other insight. I have recently figured out that one of the medical experiments done on me involved what seems to have been a successful cure for genital herpes. But one which was intended to be done in a very discreet way and covered up in a very discreet way, so that companies manufacturing inferior "managements" that weren't cures could be hit up for bribes, while such a cure would be denied to the public. In light of that, such references to the Romanov family could take on new meaning, and be seen as possibly a coded method of communication Harvard was engaged in, while orchestrating this crime. Something which they could deny or the victim (me) would really not have too good a time mentioning it, due to it sounding like the kind of fanciful story a lot of attention getters would make up. After having researched the biology behind herpes and the biology behind what this herpes cure would entail, I have noticed that several bizarre communications many of the criminals made while I was being so victimized could be seen as corresponding, in an interesting way, to details of such biological experiments. Details only a few people would be able to understand or make out. Meanwhile I, as a victim who they intended to discredit as "crazy" could not repeat such details without sounding like I'm repeating gibberish -- something they could say they didn't voice in the first place; These are just the musings of a deranged mind.)
Meanwhile, what is interesting is what happened after I go to an attorney about the crimes discussed here, he tells me to get a job and I get steered towards Keller Williams Real Estate in Rhode Island. I'll gloss over most of their weird behavior but I'll just say I was treated very abnormally, not really allowed to do much work, but also was systematically NOT given business the way other realtors were, not given a mentor, even while pressured to "network" with "people you already know" which would have meant, for the most part, individuals who had perpetrated this whole organized crime conspiracy against me in the first place. Avoiding such people left me vulnerable to people coming into my life who I had little choice over. And the instant they hired me and started doing all that, they abruptly got a ton of new business and were able to open up a new office on the East Side of Providence, a very hard market to break into. After getting that job, I go to Rockport where there is a psychic fair or something, and the psychic who I get the reading with tells me she was a former realtor for Keller Williams and that office in Providence is a nice office, said a couple of things to encourage me to believe it was kind of rigged for her to go up there to be in Rockport then. Then she tells me that all the crimes perpetrated against me are all due to lineage "this all goes back to your lineage." Then very shortly afterwards, the manager, Judi Beaty whose bizarre words you can see in another blog here posts a picture of a woman who looked very much like my grandmother when young, a woman who she said was a friend, and she later took the picture down so there was no evidence she did that. Then, unlike this other lesbian realtor who they gave all sorts of business to, they told me they won't give me business and I will have to network with people I already know -- e.g., network with those who criminally victimized me. I go to Provincetown where I am sort of solicited by this Adam guy who is visiting there, who arranges for me to go to the gay service at Old West Church, where Yuko Hayashi very strongly tells me to "keep going there," and then this Adam guy starts talking about how he is basically the illegitimate grandson maybe of Charlie Chaplin, or something like that, and a long story about how it's all secret and hushed up. His last name was Galbraith and when I asked was he related to the economics professor, Galbraith, at Harvard, I can't quite remember what he said, but he was non-committal about it. Trying to imply he was officially not related to Professor Galbraith but possibly unofficially secretly really related to him. And, there may have been a few other people I talked to who gave me hints, but that caused me to do some amount of thinking and remember what people said previously, including Richard Pipes of Harvard, and when I mention it to Adam, he sort of says something like "you're Anastasia" or something like that, in a sort of authoritative enough tone of voice so it would be understandable for me to end up a bit confused or wondering what might be going on.
Now, of course, if you look at what I look like, I looked up photographs of the Italian Royal Family and Romanov Family, and I look enough like a lot of them so I could be related to them, and the Harvard associations and bizarre stuff that went on there also make it plausible, aka it IS the sort of thing Harvard would have done. Meanwhile, that "Stefano" person who was the online stalker at Berkshire Hathaway also kept representing himself to be a member of the Italian Royal Family the whole time I was talking to him. At the same time, though, I should note when he and co-workers at Berkshire Hathaway threatened me in 2008, and I filed a police report in Rockport, MA, I know the original police report included me having reported this man claimed to be from the Italian Royal Family. The system in Rockport has since been computerized, and the police report since altered and the whole reference to the Italian Royal Family taken out. Which is interesting and, also, possibly consistent with a strategy to falsely plant "disinformation" with me that can later be denied and attributed to me just having made something up.
I should also note that the way Keller William's treated me, obviously they knew I was a crime victim, put me under pressure to feel like I should make an effort to look like I was "networking," and given the criminal activities of nearly everyone I "knew" -- who they said were the people I should get business from in absence of Keller Williams helping me like they helped others -- this pressure resulted in me putting myself in situations that I think could be described not inaccurately as bordering on sexual slavery in some circumstances, so long as you are cognizant of the extreme intimidation that had been going on for years and how bad a state of intimidation I was suffering from then. What ends up happening was me getting shunned by nearly everyone in the gay community except for a select few who remarkably were willing to meet with me on repeat occasions.
Because of all that, I have to say I am quite suspicious of the Boston Bombing and wonder if these same criminals who victimized me were somehow behind it, and I would not be surprised if it turned out that the individuals I dealt with may have even known the Boston Bombers, and possibly make me somehow look potentially involved. (-- added 12-31-2016 - I should note my suspicions about the Boston Bombing are not mere speculation but have to do with so many individuals predicting such a thing to me, after telling me about the perpetrators' absolute determination to resort to whatever it took to cover up the crimes perpetrated against me and others, which I knew about, including tons of poor black Dorchester residents in this neighborhood in Dorchester where I used to live.)
To my knowledge, the medical experiments several perpetrators of abuse against me had perpetrated against them all were done AFTER AFTER the Boston Bombing, though I suppose I do not know whether some might have occurred before. I suppose the two things might not be connected, but Harvey Silverglate who was a lawyer I’d been encouraged to contact about my own situation as a victim and then did eventually contact, to no avail, ended up representing the Boston Bomber. Upon being caught by the cops he was shot in the mouth so he could not talk at first and then taken to Beth Israel Hospital, the same medical institution affiliated with the Fenway Community Health Center who had mislead me and manipulated me in a number of ways all the while conducting medical experiments on me that included, it would appear, some method of eradicating herpes, and you can read in The Atlantic (google: "The Atlantic when doctors torture") to learn information about the ability of the medical profession to conduct a kind of torture on people that "leaves no marks" and is covered up simply via falsified medical records, thus it can be done and there is no evidence of torture; a person simply 'confessed' to a certain 'scenario' of events all on their own accord." I'd say a cloud of suspicion deserves to hang over that whole Boston Bombing case as to whether it really was properly handled.
And, I would have tried to find them online, certain experiences attempting to meet gay people other than online who worked for the same real estate company I worked for leading to a couple of bad experiences, and everyone online was shunning me or behaving in a whole myriad of problematic ways, except for one or two people -- and, automatically, that looks suspicious. On top of it, I had PTSD then that was connected to the hook up scene. I noticed, if I tried to hook up once a week or less, I'd have PTSD each time I hooked up, but once I was successful enough to hook up three or four times in a row in the same week, and the PTSD revolving around hook ups started going away. Noticing that, I wanted to keep maintaining hook ups either that often with strangers, or that often with non-strangers, or both -- whatever would work best to help me "expose" myself to re-triggering situations to help facilitate my recovery from PTSD. The end result being, hooking up with the only individuals who would hook up with me and not deliberately try to retrigger my PTSD issues. One of them, of course, did suddenly announce he knew all sorts of Muslims, only after the Boston Bombing. I wonder..... In addition, I wouldn't be surprised if those gay men who allowed me the chance to hook up three times in a row might have noticed how the PTSD disappeared with sufficiently frequent hook ups. I only was able to hook up three times in a row within a week ONCE while in Providence. All the rest of the time I was there, it was nothing but extremely cruel head games head games head games and enforced celibacy at a time in my life when I needed the emotional support the most. Something, I note, which was likely the indirect result of crooked cops who oversee drug enforcement -- creating a situation where those who want the opportunity to be able to party and have fun without serious negative consequences are obliged to partake in these underground organized crime campaigns.)
---
In any case, more weird was how the whole entire Providence gay scene shunned me very systematically in such a way that caused me to be steered towards hooking up with one and only one person, after being cruelly cut off by another person in exactly the right way so I NEEDED human contact with another gay male “on the rebound” in a sense. AFTER the Boston Bombing happens, this one and only person who was the only person in the Providence area who would hook up with me suddenly professes his love for Muslims in manner that would seem to hint at involvement with the Boston Bombers. Not only that but the man who had led me on only to cut me off cruelly had also gone through this complicated rigmarole with other gays in Boston where they intimidated me over my previous complaints of police misconduct and being targetted by the mafia, in exactly the right manner so that out of fear I agreed I was willing and eager to collude with the terroristic sounding cover up I’d been told in 2009 was planned. Not that I really wanted to cooperate with such a thing. However, I’d been threatened by computer hackers with destruction of all the evidence I’d collected, which I needed preservation of should I want to preserve my ability to ever turn this into a criminal or civil legal case in the future, and it all looked like promising that I wanted to go along with some fake cover up would mollify perpetrators enough to get them to stop deleting or destroying my evidence further. Here is where crooked cops who had been involved with me in the past had put on this whole act of pretending to be terrified over how my eyewitness testimony plus objective evidence of their wrong doing could get them in trouble, or could expose “the mafia,” and then put on an act of trying to cover things up in these ridiculous ways, reminiscent of Inspector Closeau of The Pink Panther or some other slapstick movie. Hard to explain how, this is complicated, but they gave me the impression that they were trying to cover things up and were stupid about it too, stupid enough so that promising to cooperate with a terroristic solution to the situation would mollify them enough so I could avoid future attempts on my life or future attempts to destroy evidence. On top of it, I also could not come forward about (or was too afraid to come forward about) some of the especially crazy sounding things that had gone on in Dorchester, MA, because this was a neighborhood that was so poor and black, police and allied criminals literally did all sorts of things in that neighborhood, out in the streets in the wide open, which could not be reported by me (or by anyone else) without it sounding like I had simply done crystal meth and become totally delusional. A strategy I should note is used en masse against black residents in Dorchester, so they can be systematically rounded up and used for nazi like medical experiments in local hospitals tied to Harvard, MIT, etc. And the lawyer I got, Brian Bixby, refused to put me at ease regarding willingness on his part to arrange for an investigation that would make me feel secure and protected enough so I could just admit all I wanted was a legitimate criminal investigation, and not a terroristic outcome. To sum it up in a less complicated manner: I’d been manipulated into feeling no choice but to ‘agree’ with a terroristic solution to the matter as my only way of avoiding being framed again, poisoned again, or declared “crazy” or having the evidence proving I wasn’t crazy with regard to certain allegations I was making destroyed. After being so manipulated or intimidated, I was never put at ease in the right way, the prior threats were never properly removed, so I kept quiet and said nothing, and the Boston Bombing happened, and I suspect it probably would not have happened the way it did, had people done what they knew would have worked to make me willing to talk earlier. However, it is almost as if the people I was dealing with then all kind of knew how I’d been intimidated before. And all knew exactly how to keep me intimidated, all the while everyone else who didn’t know — objective parties who did not know the details of how I was intimidated — would not see how the actions of everyone in Providence prior to the Boston Bombing were designed to keep me intimidated and quiet about certain matters. Though, of course, a proper investigation into everything would expose it all anyway, I note.
In a number of ways, the Boston Bombing looks an awful lot like it is exactly what Dana Bogdar said they would do, where the two brothers blamed for it could have been framed (I know what that little group of people who targeted me are capable of) and one of the crooked cops I dealt with, Javier Pagan, was in the news for being miraculously unhurt despite being very near the bomb because he seemed to have known to stand in such a place so the flags were between him and the bombs. The Boston Bomber's own attorney, not surprisingly, insisted he was guilty, but she is a corporate lawyer defending corporate criminals, quite possibly some of the same ones who I think Dana Bogdar was referring to when he said "powerful mafia bosses" intend to cover all of this up.
——-
I also want to add in another factor. While Wall Street speculation and profiteering off the rigged and well-timed release of negative information on medical products IS a factor here, a whole other factor is the bloated service economy and political patronage jobs created from overprescribing anti-psychotic meds to individuals, mostly minorities.
The USA, in a sense, is an empire just like the Roman Empire, which taxes the provinces and distributes largess to the middle class in the form of political patronage or, essentially, welfare. Problem is, we have a several tiered welfare system where only the underclass gets direct welfare benefits and we call it that. Otherwise, there is a huge "college bubble" designed as a gigantic guild system that distributes the rest of the largess as political patronage jobs in an unnecessarily large "service" economy. Because the more high falluten welfare system requires that we pretend its upper middle class recipients are "doing a whole lot of good," here is where the system has an interest in systematically sabotaging certain marginalized populations, encouraging them to have lots of social problems and family dysfunction, and engaging in systematic fraudulent diagnosis of "mental illness" and counter-productive "treatments" that cause dependency rather than curing anything, all so as to prop up a bloated political patronage system that awards non-productive service jobs to the middle class, all so we can import goods cheap from abroad, which helps to enrich the richest businessmen associated with the Federal Government.
Naturally, it falls to minorities to "have all the problems" and family dysfunction crucial to creating nice jobs for certain upper middle class college grads who wish to make money working in easy jobs in social service occupations. And here is where pharmaceutical profiteering comes in. A psychiatric drug that does the opposite of cure does more than merely create dependency which leads to guaranteed revenues for pharmaceutical companies. It helps create predictable jobs for white college grads who are employed to administer the drugs and run all the "assisted living" facilities that become necessary for all individuals who have been put on medications that turn them into non-functional zombies.
I haven't failed to notice how all the drugs that have been "tested" on my brother are all the very same drugs that are being massively over-prescribed to African Americans, who are being diagnosed with schizophrenia at a rate four times that of whites. This issue is rarely publicized or even mentioned by critics of psychiatry, yet I do not see how it cannot, in and of itself, be seen as indication of financially motivated massive systemic fraud in the diagnosis of schizophrenia and related "illnesses."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701496.html
John Zeber recently examined one of the nation's largest databases of psychiatric cases to evaluate how doctors diagnose schizophrenia, a disorder that often portends years of powerful brain-altering drugs, social ostracism and forced hospitalizations.
Although schizophrenia has been shown to affect all ethnic groups at the same rate, the scientist found that blacks in the United States were more than four times as likely to be diagnosed with the disorder as whites. Hispanics were more than three times as likely to be diagnosed as whites.
Zeber, who studies quality, cost and access issues for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, found that differences in wealth, drug addiction and other variables could not explain the disparity in diagnoses: "The only factor that was truly important was race."
Indeed, economically speaking, particularly with respect to medicaid funded bad drugs targeted to minorities and the poor, it makes the most sense for a Hedge Fund to help a company cover up bad information for a number of years, profit off the over-prescription of the drug to those with bad health care plans, and then only begin to "discover" the bad side effects (and start profiteering off class action lawsuits) shortly before the drug's 20-year patent runs out, all so as to help increase the profits of the next non-generic (and expensive and bad) drug about to be rolled out, negative information already secretly known and hushed up. If the system is rigged well enough, elite investors can systematically figure out how to invest ONLY in profitable companies only WHEN they are profitable, even while using their connections to the Democratic Party to help them "coordinate" with Class Action Plaintiff's Lawyers waiting in the wings, all so as to ensure they can move their investments around smoothly so as to pull away from a company before a time of liability.
The fact that Hedge Funds can rig things this way creates large scale structural economic incentives for business interests to systematically push our healthcare system in a direction where it consistently produces bad and unhealthy medicine for minorities and the poor, because it is much easier to make a guaranteed predictable profit off of rigging predictable medical failures than to profit off a hoped-for medical breakthrough that may never materialize or may fail after all. Yes, there are some -- maybe lots -- of incentives built into the system to try to profit off medical innovation. As many incentives, I suppose, as there are rich people and a large upper middle class.
But there are huge incentives to also profit off of bad medicine, particularly when it comes to minorities, the poor, even the middle class. The incentive structure rewards predictable failure, particularly in a system whereby Universities have guild interests and want to "place" as many young professionals into certain social service jobs at a predictably steady rate. At all costs, it would be a disaster to successfully treat certain illnesses. You'd completely destroy your market for certain products, and a whole class of professionals would become unemployed and need to be retrained and employed elsewhere, their academic degrees suddenly worthless. They might even have to do manual labor which is beneath them.
So it is important to understand that there are several types of corruption, all seemingly juxtaposed upon one another, and Wall Street and Hedge Funds create a whole additional level of corruption beyond the bad that pharmaceutical companies would engage in alone. And it isn't only about the interests of pharmaceutical companies and Wall Street alone. The guild interests of academia, and a whole system of placing people into guaranteed political patronage jobs also plays a role. I should say it especially plays a role in the bloating of our healthcare system, where healthcare organizations spend a huge amount of man power navigating complicated rules and regulations and processing huge amounts of paperwork. All of this unnecessary paperwork raises the cost of healthcare, but that is necessary if we are to continue employing all of these college grads fresh out of college needing steady jobs and needing to pay off their college loans.
* * * * * * * *
Meanwhile, I think we can safely say that "they" -- researchers, academics, the whole entire industry -- know full well how the system works and, more specifically, know that the drugs they are experimenting with my twin brother on are extremely unhealthy and there is obviously a lot of negative information about these drugs which they are covering up.
But, for a university like Harvard -- and allied Hedge Funds -- to participate in a twin study AND cover it up helps them shake down pharmaceutical companies profiting off such over-prescription for money, even while such over-prescription helps them create more service sector "mental health" and "social services" jobs particularly for their female graduates who graduate knee-deep in student loan debt -- thereby enabling them to maintain exorbitant tuition levels.
So, in other words, THIS is why Harvard had to commit all these horrible crimes against me, and orchestrate the same against my twin brother. They won't study this issue, unless they can figure out some way to criminally cover up negative information about these drugs, favored for inner city minorities. Rather than honestly publish information they know which would help protect the public, but also which would threaten the criminal profiteering of pharmaceutical companies off of inner city poor and marginalized groups, they seek to protect their privileges and preserve their self interests, and the interests of their rich corporate doners. They know the truth, and all they care to do about it is use their leverage to blackmail industry and shake the corporate world down for more money for their endowment, and other perks and privileges.
One has to ask, what else do they know, which they are also covering up, particularly which pertain to minorities? For instance, there is a huge amount of corruption that goes into the race disparities that make Mass Incarceration possible, which they are covering up. And they are covering it up in large part because Mass Incarceration is part of a system of slave labor that, by pushing down labor costs through prison labor, helps create tons more jobs for college grads, and thus fuels a higher education bubble and brings more money into academia. And, I note, this argument is nothing other than basic rudimentary economics which you don't have to be very smart to understand. It surely should be considered quite scandalous for Harvard to avoid explaining this very simple economic reality to its students in all of its introductory economics courses. But, so long as the New York Times doesn't call them on it, I suppose it doesn't matter.
I note, there apparently used to be a thriving black business community before desegregation, with many blacks owning banks, insurance companies, etc. This whole entire black business community somehow managed to disappear and be decimated somehow, with nary a peep from the establishment media. But the prison population is 10-20 times what it used to be. Sound at all like Stalinist Russia? Yet I can't find a single Harvard study ever done that purports to study the issue or to even ASK how it happened. But I sure guess, if they are not officially studying it, that is not because they do not know what is going on. They are just deliberately keeping certain truths under wraps in order to preserve their self interests.
Meanwhile, I have also heard rumors that, beyond a university's needs with regard to salaries and its endowment, there are also other perks university professors may be very attached to -- for instance, use of prostitutes, and all kinds of perks regarding various forms of hedonistic fun with illegal drugs compliant university professors may well enjoy, thanks to the generosity and string pulling from large corporations.
All of which is the exact same issue that motivated New York Times foreign correspondent to Russia, Walter Duranty, during the time when he white-washed Stalin's crimes, and even went so far as to deny the existence of a state engineered famine that killed millions.
I'll note, all of this corruption I speak of seems to have greatly worsened in the Reagan Era, where he supposedly engaged in all sorts of waves of privatization and corporate-academic collaboration. But notice how this corporate world consisting of college and business school grad "careerists" rather than independent entrepreneurs now has all the same problems traditionally thought to reside in government -- with employees who do not respond to market incentives and behave badly because their wealth is guaranteed based on personal connections more than how well they serve their "customers," the public. E.g., what we have here is less like "the private sector" and more like socialism in all but name.
It is interesting how many of the changes that turned the corporate world more "socialist" and non-responsive to market incentives were made during the Reagan era, ostensibly to encourage mergers between companies. All of this was combined with a lot of "privatization," public private partnerships, as well as the development of corrupt ties between business and academia. Except, isn't it interesting how such privatization happened in a manner so as to imbue the corporate world with all the same problems that give socialist governments a bad name?
All of this turns traditional thinking about government versus private sector on its head. Think of John Stossel who reports on the inefficiencies of government and argues for Private Sector solutions with private individuals responding to market incentives. In principle, he is more right than many would think. The problem is just that, so much of the "privatization" that occurs is all about turning things over to a crony capitalistic corporate oligarchy that is no better than government. Right now, publicly owned "private corporations" are, in fact, inherently socialist -- regardless of whether you call them "the private sector" or not. Such privatization is fake, a scam. In other words, "privatization" did not make the government lean and mean. It made the private sector fat and stupid. And was similar, in effect, to nationalizing large parts of the private sector. Now you have a lot of liberals criticizing the "unrestrained free market" as a result, but is this really the free market they are criticizing or socialism they are criticizing? A good reason why it's important to look beyond superficial labels and investigate the underlying structure of things.